if your going to refute then refute, if you can't then just say it, no need to make yourself look bad. 3 options, Refute, don't refute, or show insecurity by throwing jokes to off put or slide away from a rebuttal.

To refute your opinions would involve presenting countering ideas and support for them. is that correct? Will you address things that people write that disagree with you? If so, can we narrow it down to one at a time to focus a bit more?

How about History? You have the Bible under History in your paragraph. Yes the Bible exists but what do you know about the history of the Bible? It was written and compiled over many centuries. It was also translated into different languages. It is made up of different sorts of writing including poetry, praise, instruction and historical accounts. What do you really know about the history of the Bible? Do you have a particular translation that you prefer? If so, do you know how it came to be made?

Ah so now you get to determine what is a fact? So much more for the scientific method and all of the progress we've made...

Nope, Actually Science(Creation ex Nihilo, First Uncaused Cause, The Shroud, "macro-evolution" being a myth, Intelligent Design Fact, Mind-Body Dualism being a Fact/Mind is Immaterial), Philosophy("naturalism" is impossible, Morality), History(The Bible, Jesus Christ Resurrection being a Fact of Life), Logical(Ontological, God has to necessarily exist) determines what is Fact, and Science says that Factually, 100%, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) exists and The Bible is The Objective Truth.

now, what proof and evidence is there against these Facts?

None.

None of those are sciences, those are only related to theology and therefore cannot be considered objective facts.

Either you're lying or you're naive, lets use The First Uncaused Cause for example, this is a Scientific Fact, if it ain't then you will properly refute it, now,

An Infinite Past of Anything in Succession(Matter, Time, Space, Energy, Change, cause & effect etc) is a Impossibility. if the past was infinite we would never get to the present, count down from Infinity to zero. therefore anything in succession must have a beginning in the finite past. which means it is an indeniable Fact that once nothing existed.(evident by this and the big bang)

Since infinite amount of past cause and effect is impossible it had to start, which means there is a cause which has no cause, The First Uncaused Cause.

The Cause is,

- Uncaused since has no cause

- Beginningless since if began to exist must have a cause.

-Changeless since an Infinite Amount of past change is impossible and a change requires a cause, First Uncaused Cause has no cause

- Timeless since changeless, no change, and no Time.

- Eternal since has always existed, is changeless(ceasing to exist would be a change) and is Timeless.

- Spaceless since Timeless and changeless, things in space are ever changing and are in time.

1, "naturalism" is disproven by The Universe being caused so by default Supernatural and Immaterial exists.

2, Nothing existed and nothing causes nothing, the "nothing causes something" Quantum Mechanics argument proposed by w-child has been thrown in the fire with these facts,

1, The Quantum Vaccum isn't empty space.

2, Nothing cannot cause something with this fact,

The Cause of an effect must be equivelent or greater than it's effect,

Nothing has no properties, something has properties. so for nothing to cause something it would need the properties to do so, so if nothing caused something, it needs to properties of something rendering it to be something instead of nothing! and if nothing caused something it would need the properties from something eternal rendering it again not nothing.

Nothing can only cause, nothing.

and the "universe caused itself" argument(whoever posed this argument needs their liscense revoked, is automatically void as if the universe caused itself it would have already needed to exist!.

And lastly as proven in #5 can only have been caused on purpose.

There is no naturalistic explanation as 1, Supernatural exist, 2, it's impossible for nothing to cause something and 3, it is an impossiblity for The First Uncaused Cause to cause on accident.

#7, Creation ex nihilo proves The Bible is even more Scientifically Accurate and Correct, Creation ex Nihilo proves God exists and God is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit who is 1 God that is 3 Persons.

To refute your opinions would involve presenting countering ideas and support for them. is that correct? Will you address things that people write that disagree with you? If so, can we narrow it down to one at a time to focus a bit more?

How about History? You have the Bible under History in your paragraph. Yes the Bible exists but what do you know about the history of the Bible? It was written and compiled over many centuries. It was also translated into different languages. It is made up of different sorts of writing including poetry, praise, instruction and historical accounts. What do you really know about the history of the Bible? Do you have a particular translation that you prefer? If so, do you know how it came to be made?

Having translation problems mean nothing, we have Alot of Manuscripts, The Bible is the most accurate Historical Document in Ancient History, http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Going through every "naturalistic" myth and will leave The Resurrection as The Only Explanation, not best or most probable but Only Explanation.

proving that Jesus Christ existed and there was an empty tomb factually follows that He rose from the dead.

myth theory -

Different points of views, no contradiction from The Apostles means events happened. miracles are authentic as they are written in witness and have evidence of addition, exaggeration, or lies.

Josephus proves Jesus Christ was crucified, no matter what you say this man was a Jew, had no biased or presupposition.

Nazareth Inscription proves empty tomb.

Women found the tomb empty, this irrefutable, criteria of embarrassment

Matthew 28:11-18 proves without a doubt there was an empty tomb, Matthew refutes the Jews, no matter what you say or what you think he REFUTES what the Jews were saying, which proves, the Jews were claiming they stole the tomb. a common presupposition and excuse.

My fellow Christians told the truth of The Resurrection and the Jews spread the stolen tomb myth, either way EMPTY TOMB, of who? Jesus Christ, why was there a tomb? He was crucified, why? because the Jews thought He committed blasphemy why was there an empty tomb? we will get to that next. Apostles died for their beliefs and appearances are genuine(will get to it next)

"myth theory" is long gone and dead. if you EVER claim myth then you are a presuppositional delusional hypocritical, the words could go on and on.

myth "theory" is now an impossible myth.

conspiracy theory - 1, No one could have stolen the tomb as it was blocked by roman guards.

2, Apostles had nothing to gain, criteria of embarrassment, they were shamed and were against all evil, sin.

3, They died for their beliefs, 11 of the 12 Apostles died for their beliefs, no one dies for a known lie, they really believed in The Resurrection added that with the facts of the appearances.

4, Appearances to Women, proves Apostles were telling the truth

5, James, the brother of Jesus Christ in The Gospels is a skeptic, outside of it he's a believer(Letters, Church, and Josephus) Jesus had to have appeared to him.

6, Paul, a prosecutor of Christians becomes a Christian himself and becomes a leading preacher of Christianity going through all kinds of suffering and ultimately death for his beliefs.

7, Apostles believed in The Resurrection despite every predispostion to the contrary, no one believed The Messiah was going to die, be God, or much less Resurrect from the dead. no one believed in The Resurrection until the end of world, the general Resurrection.

Apostles believed The Resurrection happened, myth and conspiracy theories are now myths, if you want to argue you can only use your last 3 "naturalistic" myths when arguing with me because the myth and conspiracy theories are dead myths now, using them or believing them exposes you as a hypocrite as those are now Impossible Explanations.

Now we have a few facts,

Jesus Christ was crucifiedThere was an Empty TombJesus Christ appeared alive after His death to several peopleApostles really believed in The Resurrection

last 3 which are easily refutatable.

"twin brother/lookalike" theory - Apostles knew Jesus, saw Him perform more miracles, Empty Tomb and no one could have stolen the tomb, had same wounds, no known twin brother as James, Jesus half brother, would take that into consideration. and theory is a stretch.

"twin brother/lookalike" theory is a myth

swoon theory - Apostles saw Jesus Christ die, He was anointed, stabbed in chest pouring blood and water confirming death, romans made sure you die when crucified, even if survived would have been impossible to escape tomb, would've died later, would not convince apostles, and Jesus Christ Ascended.

swoon theory is now a myth

last theory that if I disprove I prove The Resurrection happened.

hallucination theory - Apostles were in their right minds, died for their beliefs, hallucinations are fast and quick, Thomas for example put his hand in Jesus side, you don't have multiple hallucinations about the same thing, and finally multiple people do not hallucinate about the same thing.

EVERY Single "naturalistic" "theory" has been made a myth of.

There is one Irrefutable Explanation, not the best but The Only Explanation is that Jesus Christ died on the cross and Resurrected from the dead, therefore proving everything in The Bible as a fact.

Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead.

add that with The Shroud which has no evidence of forgery, not a painting, cannot be reproduced with any type of technology, and caused by a burst of light from the dead body causing an image like a photography.

With The facts of The Bible's inerrancy and no contradiction, The Sense it makes, reliable Testimony/Accounts, Scientific Accuracy and foreknowledge, Historical Accuracy and foreknowledge, God's existence and failure of other religions making Christianity the only factual possibility, Physical evidence in The Shroud and Only Explanation being The Resurrection, it is indeniable, God Exists, Jesus Christ is Lord, Our Savior who died for our sins on the cross, Jesus Christ is the 2nd person of God, and that God is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

To refute your opinions would involve presenting countering ideas and support for them. is that correct? Will you address things that people write that disagree with you? If so, can we narrow it down to one at a time to focus a bit more?

How about History? You have the Bible under History in your paragraph. Yes the Bible exists but what do you know about the history of the Bible? It was written and compiled over many centuries. It was also translated into different languages. It is made up of different sorts of writing including poetry, praise, instruction and historical accounts. What do you really know about the history of the Bible? Do you have a particular translation that you prefer? If so, do you know how it came to be made?

Having translation problems mean nothing, we have Alot of Manuscripts, The Bible is the most accurate Historical Document in Ancient History, http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Going through every "naturalistic" myth and will leave The Resurrection as The Only Explanation, not best or most probable but Only Explanation.

proving that Jesus Christ existed and there was an empty tomb factually follows that He rose from the dead.

myth theory -

Different points of views, no contradiction from The Apostles means events happened. miracles are authentic as they are written in witness and have evidence of addition, exaggeration, or lies.

Josephus proves Jesus Christ was crucified, no matter what you say this man was a Jew, had no biased or presupposition.

Nazareth Inscription proves empty tomb.

Women found the tomb empty, this irrefutable, criteria of embarrassment

Matthew 28:11-18 proves without a doubt there was an empty tomb, Matthew refutes the Jews, no matter what you say or what you think he REFUTES what the Jews were saying, which proves, the Jews were claiming they stole the tomb. a common presupposition and excuse.

My fellow Christians told the truth of The Resurrection and the Jews spread the stolen tomb myth, either way EMPTY TOMB, of who? Jesus Christ, why was there a tomb? He was crucified, why? because the Jews thought He committed blasphemy why was there an empty tomb? we will get to that next. Apostles died for their beliefs and appearances are genuine(will get to it next)

"myth theory" is long gone and dead. if you EVER claim myth then you are a presuppositional delusional hypocritical, the words could go on and on.

myth "theory" is now an impossible myth.

conspiracy theory - 1, No one could have stolen the tomb as it was blocked by roman guards.

2, Apostles had nothing to gain, criteria of embarrassment, they were shamed and were against all evil, sin.

3, They died for their beliefs, 11 of the 12 Apostles died for their beliefs, no one dies for a known lie, they really believed in The Resurrection added that with the facts of the appearances.

4, Appearances to Women, proves Apostles were telling the truth

5, James, the brother of Jesus Christ in The Gospels is a skeptic, outside of it he's a believer(Letters, Church, and Josephus) Jesus had to have appeared to him.

6, Paul, a prosecutor of Christians becomes a Christian himself and becomes a leading preacher of Christianity going through all kinds of suffering and ultimately death for his beliefs.

7, Apostles believed in The Resurrection despite every predispostion to the contrary, no one believed The Messiah was going to die, be God, or much less Resurrect from the dead. no one believed in The Resurrection until the end of world, the general Resurrection.

Apostles believed The Resurrection happened, myth and conspiracy theories are now myths, if you want to argue you can only use your last 3 "naturalistic" myths when arguing with me because the myth and conspiracy theories are dead myths now, using them or believing them exposes you as a hypocrite as those are now Impossible Explanations.

Now we have a few facts,

Jesus Christ was crucifiedThere was an Empty TombJesus Christ appeared alive after His death to several peopleApostles really believed in The Resurrection

last 3 which are easily refutatable.

"twin brother/lookalike" theory - Apostles knew Jesus, saw Him perform more miracles, Empty Tomb and no one could have stolen the tomb, had same wounds, no known twin brother as James, Jesus half brother, would take that into consideration. and theory is a stretch.

"twin brother/lookalike" theory is a myth

swoon theory - Apostles saw Jesus Christ die, He was anointed, stabbed in chest pouring blood and water confirming death, romans made sure you die when crucified, even if survived would have been impossible to escape tomb, would've died later, would not convince apostles, and Jesus Christ Ascended.

swoon theory is now a myth

last theory that if I disprove I prove The Resurrection happened.

hallucination theory - Apostles were in their right minds, died for their beliefs, hallucinations are fast and quick, Thomas for example put his hand in Jesus side, you don't have multiple hallucinations about the same thing, and finally multiple people do not hallucinate about the same thing.

EVERY Single "naturalistic" "theory" has been made a myth of.

There is one Irrefutable Explanation, not the best but The Only Explanation is that Jesus Christ died on the cross and Resurrected from the dead, therefore proving everything in The Bible as a fact.

Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead.

add that with The Shroud which has no evidence of forgery, not a painting, cannot be reproduced with any type of technology, and caused by a burst of light from the dead body causing an image like a photography.

With The facts of The Bible's inerrancy and no contradiction, The Sense it makes, reliable Testimony/Accounts, Scientific Accuracy and foreknowledge, Historical Accuracy and foreknowledge, God's existence and failure of other religions making Christianity the only factual possibility, Physical evidence in The Shroud and Only Explanation being The Resurrection, it is indeniable, God Exists, Jesus Christ is Lord, Our Savior who died for our sins on the cross, Jesus Christ is the 2nd person of God, and that God is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

So on history you've been refuted, pick another area now.

Nobody here is denying the resurrection of Christ. He was asking you if you knew about the historical origin of the Bible.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

Eastern Catholicism has always boggled my mind. The theological language which the Romans use often seems to contradict the Eastern understanding of the Faith, and many Roman Catholics today would not understand an Eastern or Oriental Catholic's point of view when it came to many of their cherished doctrines.

You aren't the first person I have heard make this claim, and I have yet to be convinced that it is true. Rather than seeing them as in conflict, I see them as complementary.

To refute your opinions would involve presenting countering ideas and support for them. is that correct? Will you address things that people write that disagree with you? If so, can we narrow it down to one at a time to focus a bit more?

How about History? You have the Bible under History in your paragraph. Yes the Bible exists but what do you know about the history of the Bible? It was written and compiled over many centuries. It was also translated into different languages. It is made up of different sorts of writing including poetry, praise, instruction and historical accounts. What do you really know about the history of the Bible? Do you have a particular translation that you prefer? If so, do you know how it came to be made?

Having translation problems mean nothing, we have Alot of Manuscripts, The Bible is the most accurate Historical Document in Ancient History, http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Thank you for the link.. Do you understand that many of the "manuscripts" are not complete books or complete Bibles but fragments or portions? Even the page you linked to says that they are fragments. Do you use the CARM site for your ideas? Why do you trust them as reliable?

The 66 books that make up the Bible today, not counting the Apocrypha, were not put together into one group for some time. There were canons that were established starting in the 4th Century with the Emperor Constantine. F.F. Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture is a good book on this.

I don't care about The King James Version, we got The Manuscripts, King James is therefore not needed in this debate,

Can you read Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic? Do you have access to the "Manuscripts" fragments and older volumes? The translations do matter because they are how people who do not read those languages/have access to the materials have the Bible.

Have you ever translated anything from one language to another? Do you speak/read any other languages? You've made a claim here that the NIV is the "best Translation". Prove it. Who else likes it?

I'll have to check this gentleman that you linked to, but you posting it doesn't mean that it is necessarily accurate. I believe that in one of your earlier posts you were making claims about that particular passage of scripture. Did you just cut and paste from the linked site?

Addressing one or two ideas at a time can make discussion easier. Why did you just post more claims?

You did not "refute" me but just posted things that I had not written about. At no point did I write anything denying the Resurrection of Our Lord. Therefore you did not address my point but, in effect, tried to put "words in my mouth" which I never said. Therefore, you attributed something to me that was not True.

What do you personally know about how History is studied and how real historians work?

« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 04:00:27 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

To refute your opinions would involve presenting countering ideas and support for them. is that correct? Will you address things that people write that disagree with you? If so, can we narrow it down to one at a time to focus a bit more?

How about History? You have the Bible under History in your paragraph. Yes the Bible exists but what do you know about the history of the Bible? It was written and compiled over many centuries. It was also translated into different languages. It is made up of different sorts of writing including poetry, praise, instruction and historical accounts. What do you really know about the history of the Bible? Do you have a particular translation that you prefer? If so, do you know how it came to be made?

Having translation problems mean nothing, we have Alot of Manuscripts, The Bible is the most accurate Historical Document in Ancient History, http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Thank you for the link.. Do you understand that many of the "manuscripts" are not complete books or complete Bibles but fragments or portions? Even the page you linked to says that they are fragments. Do you use the CARM site for your ideas? Why do you trust them as reliable?

The 66 books that make up the Bible today, not counting the Apocrypha, were not put together into one group for some time. There were canons that were established starting in the 4th Century with the Emperor Constantine. F.F. Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture is a good book on this.

I don't care about The King James Version, we got The Manuscripts, King James is therefore not needed in this debate,

Can you read Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic? Do you have access to the "Manuscripts" fragments and older volumes? The translations do matter because they are how people who do not read those languages/have access to the materials have the Bible.

Have you ever translated anything from one language to another? Do you speak/read any other languages? You've made a claim here that the NIV is the "best Translation". Prove it. Who else likes it?

I'll have to check this gentleman that you linked to, but you posting it doesn't mean that it is necessarily accurate. I believe that in one of your earlier posts you were making claims about that particular passage of scripture. Did you just cut and paste from the linked site?

Addressing one or two ideas at a time can make discussion easier. Why did you just post more claims?

You did not "refute" me but just posted things that I had not written about. At no point did I write anything denying the Resurrection of Our Lord. Therefore you did not address my point but, in effect, tried to put "words in my mouth" which I never said. Therefore, you attributed something to me that was not True.

What do you personally know about how History is studied and how real historians work?

Like I said in another thread about SBC, "He's 18, if I remember correctly. Ergo, he knows everything (but not quite as much as a 16 or 17 year old). "

If I stick with traditional Christianity, I will stick with Orthodoxy but I'm not exactly sure whether I will stick with traditional Christianity for the rest of my life. I'm somewhat conservative as a person though so I wouldn't be so suprised if I stayed in the fold despite turning into an augustin copycat. At least I had dignified culture and tradition left despite losing faith in Orthodoxy as an explicit institutional religion.

Logged

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.Leviticus 19:34

The 66 books that make up the Bible today, not counting the Apocrypha, were not put together into one group for some time. There were canons that were established starting in the 4th Century with the Emperor Constantine. F.F. Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture is a good book on this.

While I have seen many people say this (bolded part), I do not know that it's true or not. Do you have any scholarly references/sources?

The 66 books that make up the Bible today, not counting the Apocrypha, were not put together into one group for some time. There were canons that were established starting in the 4th Century with the Emperor Constantine. F.F. Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture is a good book on this.

While I have seen many people say this (bolded part), I do not know that it's true or not. Do you have any scholarly references/sources?

The first list of "canonical" books that names the same twenty-seven writings found in our New Testament appears in the Easter letter of Athanasius , Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, in 367 C.E. He names them in a different order, to be sure. Even so, the first list that agrees with ours was a long time in coming.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I read him as claiming not that Constantine defined the canon; only that that canon as we have it today, was formulated not too long after Constantine's rule.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 04:35:53 PM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Eastern Catholicism has always boggled my mind. The theological language which the Romans use often seems to contradict the Eastern understanding of the Faith, and many Roman Catholics today would not understand an Eastern or Oriental Catholic's point of view when it came to many of their cherished doctrines.

You aren't the first person I have heard make this claim, and I have yet to be convinced that it is true. Rather than seeing them as in conflict, I see them as complementary.

I would love to talk more about how you see them as complimentary, as I've been seeking to reconcile them in my own mind as well. Yet that would deserve a thread of its own...

Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity

I am 1,000,000% sure that if I were to ever apostate from Orthodoxy, it wouldn't be for another Christian denomination. I am 1,000,000% sure that Orthodoxy is the real deal and the most reasonable Christianity. If I were to ever apostate, it would be to an entirely different religion--probably either Buddhism or atheism.

Neither of which should be called "religions". Buddhism is very non-theistic, and atheism is a philosophy.

I disagree, both, especially atheism are both religions. Dawkins practices the religion of atheism as an example.

I am 1,000,000% sure that if I were to ever apostate from Orthodoxy, it wouldn't be for another Christian denomination. I am 1,000,000% sure that Orthodoxy is the real deal and the most reasonable Christianity. If I were to ever apostate, it would be to an entirely different religion--probably either Buddhism or atheism.

This is the same for me, I would not and could not leave Orthodoxy unless it was towards an absolute state of atheism. If the Christian God doesn't exist and Orthodoxy isn't try, then no other religion is true and no God exists.

Define "religion"? I always understood religion to be involving worship of a god, or gods. Atheism is godless by definition, and seeks to worship nothing.

Religions isn't worship of a god or gods, though it sometimes involves that. Buddhism is a religion, modern Atheism is a religion. A visit to Wikipedia or Dictionary.com will show good definitions of religion.

I would say that a man like Neil Degrasse Tyson isn't religious, whereas a man like Richard Dawkins is highly religious. One is apathetic toward religion and even towards atheism, he's a scientist and doesn't care much for such debate; the other has dedicated his whole life and being towards atheism and furthering its philosophy, doctrine and membership using a lot of rhetoric similar to Protestant Fundamentalists.

Yes and I saw no definition which indicates atheism would be a religion.

".a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Atheism is not about believing or not believing in anything. Most atheists would much rather look at facts, and what can be proven rather than a personal set of beliefs. That's closer to knowledge and understanding, not a matter of belief and faith.

I suppose you don't know any atheists then. May I introduce you to r/atheism? If you go there you'll see how atheism is a religion.

"buddhism" worships a "budda" and "atheism" believes in nothingness, both false religions.

Buddhism doesn't "worship" a Buddha--at least not all Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism does not worship the Buddha, although, to be fair, the weird non-Indian forms of Buddhism do. As for atheism believing in "nothingness", that's quite a stretch. How exactly does lack of a belief in a God or gods constitute belief in nothingness? In fact, how is that even logically possible?

Quote

There can only be One True Religion and that is Christianity.

Why not Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism, Jediism etc?

Logged

Until I see the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, I will not believe.

I read him as claiming not that Constantine defined the canon; only that that canon as we have it today, was formulated not too long after Constantine's rule.

That's correct. I wrote poorly in my using Constantine as a sort of marker of the period with his supporting Christianity with the State and calling councils such as Nicaea I in 325 and the listing of various combinations of books to be part of the canon that were written down. It was my intent with this to give some historical context and that the Bible did not get handed down all in one piece from some indefinite time nor that the New Testament was all compiled and agreed on in the first century.

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Well, some of them do. Let's not lump all atheists together. IIRC, atheism simply means "lack of belief in a deity or deities". Nothing specifically about "reason" or "compassion" need go along with that. Some atheists are reasonable and compassionate, and some are jerks (just like Christians ).

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Under "atheism" there is no reason for rape to be wrong, but actually under "atheism" would be right, which is scary, there goes "atheistic" reason and compassion.

if you disagree then please answer this question, what reason is there for rape to be wrong under "naturalism"/"atheism"?

Can you provide some factual evidence that the majority of convicted rapists are atheists? Because then this would actually be a legitimate question.

But to answer your question, if you really can't think of a good reason for rape to be wrong other than your religious beliefs, then please, by all means, don't let go of your religious beliefs. And either way, stay away from my house.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 07:26:20 PM by theistgal »

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Can you provide some factual evidence that the majority of convicted rapists are atheists?

Who said a majority of "atheist" are rapist? you slanderer, I said under "atheism" there is no reason for rape to be wrong, so if an "atheist" agrees that rape is wrong, they use Theistic Moral, aka General Real Morals.

if you really can't think of a good reason for rape to be wrong other than your religious beliefs, then please, by all means, don't let go of your religious beliefs. And either way, stay away from my house.

Answer the question then if I am wrong, what reason under "atheism"(never said "atheist" are rapist, I said that there is no such thing as "atheistic" reason and compassion, any "atheist" who has reason and compassion uses Theistic Cognitive Logic)/ "naturalism" is rape wrong?

You are warned for using an ad hominem and not respecting others. Please review our rules. If you wish to contest this warning, please PM me first. Carl Kraeff (Second Chance), Section Moderator

Can you provide some factual evidence that the majority of convicted rapists are atheists?

Who said a majority of "atheist" are rapist? you slanderer, I said under "atheism" there is no reason for rape to be wrong, so if an "atheist" agrees that rape is wrong, they use Theistic Moral, aka General Real Morals.

if you really can't think of a good reason for rape to be wrong other than your religious beliefs, then please, by all means, don't let go of your religious beliefs. And either way, stay away from my house.

Answer the question then if I am wrong, what reason under "atheism"(never said "atheist" are rapist, I said that there is no such thing as "atheistic" reason and compassion, any "atheist" who has reason and compassion uses Theistic Cognitive Logic)/ "naturalism" is rape wrong?

1. Please do not call me names.

2. There is no such thing as "atheism" as a specific philosophy/system of belief. "Atheism" is "the lack of belief in a god or gods". There are atheists who belong to religions such as Buddhism, which has its own ethical system. There are other atheists who follow the rules of whatever society they managed to land in.

3. Rape is wrong because forcing another person, against their will, to have sex with you is a violation of their rights under the law. If you actually need more of a reason than that, then please, stay home, far far away from the rest of civilization.

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Historically, most societies have had punishments of some kind against rapists and other criminals. It's one of the signs of being a civilized culture, that you have a system of laws and something done against violators of the law.

Can you provide some factual evidence that the majority of convicted rapists are atheists?

Who said a majority of "atheist" are rapist? you slanderer, I said under "atheism" there is no reason for rape to be wrong, so if an "atheist" agrees that rape is wrong, they use Theistic Moral, aka General Real Morals.

if you really can't think of a good reason for rape to be wrong other than your religious beliefs, then please, by all means, don't let go of your religious beliefs. And either way, stay away from my house.

Answer the question then if I am wrong, what reason under "atheism"(never said "atheist" are rapist, I said that there is no such thing as "atheistic" reason and compassion, any "atheist" who has reason and compassion uses Theistic Cognitive Logic)/ "naturalism" is rape wrong?

1. Please do not call me names.

2. There is no such thing as "atheism" as a specific philosophy/system of belief. "Atheism" is "the lack of belief in a god or gods". There are atheists who belong to religions such as Buddhism, which has its own ethical system. There are other atheists who follow the rules of whatever society they managed to land in.

3. Rape is wrong because forcing another person, against their will, to have sex with you is a violation of their rights under the law. If you actually need more of a reason than that, then please, stay home, far far away from the rest of civilization.

1, you claimed that I said that a "majority of "atheist are rapist", I didn't say that.

2, actually "lack of belief" is a philosophy, I can easily refute it with this question, what proof and evidence is there for a "lack of belief" to be accurate and correct?

3,That is the correct reason, but under "atheism" there wouldn't be a law, that's why "atheism" is fairy tales.

Atheism is not necessarily naturalism. It is indeed true that most western atheists are naturalistic in their worldview, but just because they are atheists--lack belief in a God or gods--it does not follow that they necessarily are naturalists--like many scientists. Indeed, I know many atheists that are actually very superstitious or "spiritual" people who dabble in the occult and the like. Even Buddhism itself--which is a religion--is technically atheistic--although they generally refer to be called "non-theistic--because the religion lacks any concept of a God or gods.

Logged

Until I see the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, I will not believe.

LOLOLOL , that's why I feel this whole argument started by SBC here has gotten rather pointless.. so it's no big deal to me anymore.

Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity

I read him as claiming not that Constantine defined the canon; only that that canon as we have it today, was formulated not too long after Constantine's rule.

That's correct. I wrote poorly in my using Constantine as a sort of marker of the period with his supporting Christianity with the State and calling councils such as Nicaea I in 325 and the listing of various combinations of books to be part of the canon that were written down. It was my intent with this to give some historical context and that the Bible did not get handed down all in one piece from some indefinite time nor that the New Testament was all compiled and agreed on in the first century.